MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471230761 · doi:10.1177/175797590601300104

‘We don't want to Manage Poverty’: Community Groups Politicise Food Insecurity and Charitable Food Donations

2006· article· en· W2471230761 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePromotion & Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyFood insecurityFood securityRoot (linguistics)Political scienceEconomic JusticePoliticsBusinessEconomic growthEnvironmental healthEconomicsAgricultureMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charitable assistance is a common response to food insecurity in many affluent countries. The coalition featured in this case study is explicitly concerned with social justice, mitigating the potential for charitable assistance to mask the extent of food insecurity, its root causes and its long-term consequences. The coalition structure has assisted community workers in transcending day-to-day routines, so as to reflect on the politics of food insecurity and institutionalised responses to this problem. Coalition members have defined food security as an objective whose achievement will entail comprehensive reform. One noteworthy outcome has been to recommend that member groups not redistribute a number of foodstuffs commonly donated by individuals and corporations. In grappling with a tension between responding to immediate needs for food and addressing the root causes of these needs, community workers have paid attention to public health.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it